Why the Continued Interest in Bigfoot on This Forum

[William Parcher]

I am not sure YOU understand what I was saying about armchair or internet "researchers". It can be very valuable for believers or skeptics. But on either side of the coin it is much more simple then the field research.

There is a real simplicity to Bigfoot field research.

1. Look for broken trees and branches.
2. Look for largish foot-shaped depressions, even if there is only one.
3. Look for stacks or piles of things.
4. Look for hairs or poop that you do not immediately recognize.
5. Listen for any sounds that you do not immediately recognize.
6. Note any odd feelings you may have like sudden fear, feeling of being watched, nausea, etc.
7. Note any bad smells that you encounter.
8. Note anything that actually looks like a living Bigfoot.

There must be more. It's simple because the researcher is never obligated or responsible to directly link anything to a real Bigfoot. If it can be imagined to be possibly related to Bigfoot (by other Bigfoot believers) it is cool and good-to-go. If you find that your findings are being rejected or ridiculed by other Bigfooters, just rearrange your friendships and alliances until you are nestled with those who nod and smile at your stuff.

 

[Bitter Monk]

It's simple because the researcher is never obligated or responsible to directly link anything to a real Bigfoot. If it can be imagined to be possibly related to Bigfoot (by other Bigfoot believers) it is cool and good-to-go. If you find that your findings are being rejected or ridiculed by other Bigfooters, just rearrange your friendships and alliances until you are nestled with those who nod and smile at your stuff.

Sometimes with some of the people? Absolutely. All the time with all the people. Not at all.

There has been more than once where I've followed and researched an "unidentified" until it became identified, and I know others that do the same.

 

[WGBH]

Like Sam says, we do not all operate that way. I have tons of pictures and sound recordings that are not published. Because they ARE NOT good evidence. Secondary or anecdotal is of no use to science, they are merely conversation pieces between investigators.

But when people go to BIGFOOT web pages and forums and steal images and make links with the sole purpose of ridicule. We investigators have no control over that. Some of the items were merely meant as conversation pieces (pro and con) by investigators.

 

[Vortigern99]

Sometimes with some of the people? Absolutely. All the time with all the people. Not at all.

There has been more than once where I've followed and researched an "unidentified" until it became identified, and I know others that do the same.

Please explain how this activity is more complex, or more difficult, that applying critical thinking to reports, photos and videos of paranormal events from one's home.

 

[Bitter Monk]

Please explain how this activity is more complex, or more difficult, that applying critical thinking to reports, photos and videos of paranormal events from one's home.

I'm not in the easier vs more difficult argument. Maybe you meant to direct that question at John?

 

[William Parcher]

Sometimes with some of the people? Absolutely. All the time with all the people. Not at all.

There has been more than once where I've followed and researched an "unidentified" until it became identified, and I know others that do the same.

But you are sure that you have seen a Bigfoot; is that correct?

 

[WGBH]

Please explain how this activity is more complex, or more difficult, that applying critical thinking to reports, photos and videos of paranormal events from one's home.

Because the subject or target areas are not in one's home?

 

[WGBH]

I wonder how many expeditions

1) have a bloke in a suit make an appearance?

2) arrange some rock throwing and tree knocking?

3) have a liar who claims he saw a BF?

4) have a member who has a Walter Mitty-like fantasy and hallucinates BF?

Plenty of them do. Even ones where I have been present. I just pack up my gear and leave.

 

[Bitter Monk]

But you are sure that you have seen a Bigfoot; is that correct?

You think I'm not intelligent enough to see the setup for this argument coming a mile away?

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm not in the easier vs more difficult argument. Maybe you meant to direct that question at John?

Yes, yes I did. Sorry for the confusion.

Because the subject or target areas are not in one's home?

Please don't roll your eyes at me. I'm right here and I find it rude and dismissive.

The application of critical thought processes and skeptical techniques is, as I explained above, not "easy" or "simple" for most people. These are learned skills that derive from years of training and persistence. Whether these processes occur in a laboratory, in the field, or in one's private quarters does not reduce the difficulty of the endeavor.

If skepticism were easy or simple, more people would engage in it, but as we can see all around us, this is not the case.

Hiking, camping and looking for signs of an animal that probably does not exist are comparatively "easy" and "simple" tasks. They require little critical thought and reward the exercise of the imagination and fantasy.

 

[WGBH]

Hiking, camping and looking for signs of an animal that probably does not exist are comparatively "easy" and "simple" tasks. They require little critical thought and reward the exercise of the imagination and fantasy.

Spoken like someone with no clue of what goes on in the field.

 

[William Parcher]

Spoken like someone with no clue of what goes on in the field.

You know how to do the field.

 

[WGBH]

Uhmm...that is the camp ground not the field research.

 

[William Parcher]

You have to understand that it makes no difference if Bigfoot does not exist.

 

[WGBH]

You have to understand that it makes no difference if Bigfoot does not exist.

But it does.

 

[Vortigern99]

Please don't roll your eyes at me.

I'm done trying to discuss anything with you. Enjoy your delusions.

 

[WGBH]

I'm done trying to discuss anything with you. Enjoy your delusions.

You do the same.

 

[RayG]

Spoken like someone with no clue of what goes on in the field.

Since no one has successfully bagged a squatch, does it really matter what you do in the field?

And how do your field results differ from my armchair ones?

RayG

 

[WGBH]

Since no one has successfully bagged a squatch, does it really matter what you do in the field?

And how do your field results differ from my armchair ones?

RayG

"There is a lot of skepticism, but it seems to be more a matter of inertia than it is of people having some real reason for thinking something else.
K. Eric Drexler
”

 

[RayG]

I had no idea Drexler was a sasquatch enthusiast.

Here's a couple quotes from scientists quite familiar to the bigfoot community:

"I should reiterate my acknowledgment that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species." -- Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, page 273

"Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species -- footprints and sightings by local people are never enough. A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 3

As I was pointing out, their field research has been just as successful as my armchair research in producing a specimen.

RayG